Thomas Byrne
Meath East · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“We are very proud of the work they do in what are often very dangerous circumstances. Let us be 100% clear: our troops will only ever do peacekeeping, peace enforcement or conflict prevention in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and, of course, as with every action of this Government, in accordance with the Constitution.”
“To be clear on what our troops will be doing, they will be doing peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. That is what the law says; not what the Deputy imagines it to be. We are bound by our Constitution and international law. The legislation changes nothing in that regard.”
“We are bound by international law. We are bound by international law since our Constitution came into force and we continue to be bound by international law and always will be, no matter what happens to this legislation. International law governs what we do as a Government.”
“I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 140, 157 and 185 together. I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister. A commitment to reform what is known as the triple lock was set out in the programme for Government.”
“-----in accordance with UN principles and, of course, in accordance with our own Constitution, which commits us to peace and friendly relations among nations. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism.”
“Switzerland, the classical neutral country that is not even a member of the European Union and will never join the European Union, it is so neutral and independent, accepts UN, EU and OSCE mandates. I understand the situation is similar in Austria, which is another neutral country. By the way, it is also similar in Germany.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,013 lines we hold for Thomas Byrne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 21.
“Some Members did accept the invitation to go to visit some of our peacekeeping missions. I am very glad they did. I invite Members opposite to meet some of our military personnel abroad in the various institutions that they work with - the EU, the UN or indeed the Partnership for Peace. They can meet them and see the work they do and they will come out of that room extremely proud of what our Irish Defence Forces personnel are doing, not just in peacekeeping roles but also in international organisations.”
“-----that we are sending our sons and daughters out to war. People now see that type of language is completely exposed. Sinn Féin members do not believe it themselves; they know it is not true. They are making it up. As for our people who are working in Brussels, they are doing incredibly important roles in terms of cybersecurity and all of the additions, such as looking after the maritime domain. We are very proud of our people who work in the EU institutions and other international institutions. Some work-----”
“The Deputy is absolutely correct. I do not know whether his colleagues in Sinn Féin are left or right at this stage. I am not sure they know themselves where they sit in the pecking order but they keep saying-----”
“We are very proud of the work they do in what are often very dangerous circumstances. Let us be 100% clear: our troops will only ever do peacekeeping, peace enforcement or conflict prevention in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and, of course, as with every action of this Government, in accordance with the Constitution. We cannot go beyond our Constitution and Article 29. We want to continue the role we have played. That role is unfortunately coming to an end for the vast majority of our troops. The number of Irish peacekeepers will reduce by approximately 90% because of the triple lock requirements and the inaction of the United Nations. Deputy Murphy said he does not believe Irish troops will be sent out to war, etc., and he is absolutely correct in saying that-----”
“To be clear on what our troops will be doing, they will be doing peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. That is what the law says; not what the Deputy imagines it to be. We are bound by our Constitution and international law. The legislation changes nothing in that regard. Ireland has been a member of Partnership for Peace for more than 25 years. We heard the same scare stories more than 25 years ago about Ireland joining Partnership for Peace but people do not seem to realise we are in it. Some Members who sit on the benches opposite visited our troops in Kosovo where they are engaged in incredibly important peacekeeping work. That is a NATO operation operating under a UN mandate. Our troops have been there for more than 20 years and are doing an excellent job.”
“That is what this legislation is addressing and what we need to do to ensure we continue to play our role internationally but also, crucially, to ensure that incredible experience that members of our Defence Forces get abroad can be transferred and translated into an Irish experience. I saw them in action recently, protecting senior-level guests coming to the opening ceremony of the European Presidency. I thank our troops for all they are doing at home and abroad.”
“Frankly, we are the big losers in that because our people, our Defence Forces members who are ultimately there to protect this State and its people, are losing the experience and superb training they were getting because of the veto at the UN Security Council and the actions of one member. UNIFIL is coming to an end of the year. We will have more members of the Defence Forces working in office roles in Brussels than we will on peacekeeping missions at the end of the year because of the triple lock and the fact that the United Nations is not mandating any more peacekeeping missions.”
“Switzerland, the classical neutral country that is not even a member of the European Union and will never join the European Union, it is so neutral and independent, accepts UN, EU and OSCE mandates. I understand the situation is similar in Austria, which is another neutral country. By the way, it is also similar in Germany. I cannot find any other country in the world where the government has to go to the UN. There have been problems at the UN Security Council. The truth is that if the triple lock continues, Irish peacekeeping comes to an end. The facts bear that out. We have already seen it this year with Operation Irini, which the Deputy has now started to criticise. Our people left on that day and the mission continues.”
“We are bound by international law. We are bound by international law since our Constitution came into force and we continue to be bound by international law and always will be, no matter what happens to this legislation. International law governs what we do as a Government. Article 29 of the Constitution constrains us and we have to operate in accordance with its principles. Article 29 requires us to promote international law, friendly relations among the nations and peace, essentially. Those are legal requirements, not simply objectives. To be clear, any deployment by the Irish Government and the Dáil of troops abroad has to be as part of an international force. That can mean the UN, the EU, the OSCE or other regional organisations.”
“The Bill ensures that Ireland's participation in overseas missions will continue to be grounded in our Constitution; in international law, to which the Constitution subjects itself; and the principles of the UN Charter. Any deployment will remain subject to democratic oversight through the approval of the Government and the Dáil.”
“-----in accordance with UN principles and, of course, in accordance with our own Constitution, which commits us to peace and friendly relations among nations. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. The reforms are designed to ensure that Ireland can continue to make an effective contribution to international peace support and crisis management missions while preserving our policy of military neutrality and maintaining robust democratic oversight of overseas deployments. The Bill contains clear safeguards. Overseas deployments will continue to be limited to missions conducted for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and the strengthening of international security consistent with the UN Charter and international law.”
“Crucially, the legislation also continues to ensure and require that deployments take place as part of an international force, which could be the UN, the EU or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe or another regional organisations-----”
“The purpose of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 is to consolidate, with amendments, the existing provisions of the Defence Acts relating to the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. The Government approved the text of the Bill on 9 June 2026. The Bill has been published and will be progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas in the autumn term. The principal change is the removal of the requirement for a UN mandate as a condition for the deployment of members of the Defence Forces overseas, but the Bill retains existing requirements for both Government approval and Dáil approval before such a deployment can take place.”
“I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 140, 157 and 185 together. I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister. A commitment to reform what is known as the triple lock was set out in the programme for Government. The rationale for this reform is that the current requirement for a UN Security Council constrains Ireland's ability to participate in peacekeeping and crisis management operations because of the use, or threat of use, of a veto by any permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Government considers that decisions regarding the deployment of Irish personnel should be taken in this Dáil and by this Government under our Constitution and legislation rather than being dependent on factors outside the State's control.”
“As a Minister of State in this Government, I want to stress that we must distinguish between the policies of the Israeli Government and the Israeli people. From our own history on this island we know that the politics of division never advances a peaceful outcome. Ireland's position on the Middle East is firmly rooted in respect for human rights and international law in both word and deed. Collective action at the EU level would be most effective in this case. The Government is proceeding with this Bill in accordance with its commitments under the programme for Government and I thank Members for their contributions to the debate on this Bill.”
“It encompasses our commitment to supporting a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, including east Jerusalem. It also encompasses our commitment to achieving a just and lasting peace where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side, in two states, Israel and Palestine, in peace, security and dignity within agreed borders based on 1967 borders. We have always been clear that our goal is for both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. The cycle of violence must be brought to an end. The suffering of Palestinians and Israelis needs to end. We must always be careful to remember that and to leave space for the people to people contacts that have always been the most valuable part of the relationship between Ireland and Israel.”
“It was Brian Lenihan senior, in 1980, when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. This Irish Government and Irish governments in general have led from the front on all of this. We have led from the front on the issue of trade with settlements and on the recognition of Palestine. We will continue to lead on the need for effective EU action. On Friday, at the invitation of the French Minister for foreign affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, I will represent the Irish Government at the second edition of the Paris call for the two-state solution. As a Government, our overarching approach encompasses our commitment to working with key partners to end the conflict in Gaza and to advance a sustainable peace plan ending the conflict and addressing the huge challenges facing Palestinians in Gaza.”
“The Government has a track record of taking action in response to the actions taken by the Israeli Government which contravene international law. We are fulfilling our programme for Government commitment and this Bill is significant legislation. It is possible, because of the findings of the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that it will also contribute positively to Irish and international efforts to prevent unilateral actions that impinge upon the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and upon the viability of the two-state solution. The two-state solution is the only answer here, to have Israel and Palestine, side by side, in peace and security. Who was the first Western politician to put forward that as a serious proposition?”
“The Government has taken the time to carefully consider all of the options as well as the proposals that have been made as part of the debate in this House and during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. For those who dismiss the potential economic implications or who feel we should gamble or take a risk with them, the question is whose jobs they are willing to sacrifice. What companies do they want to see leave Ireland? That is a question that some people are quite prepared to answer in this House. I am not accusing the Deputies opposite but there are Deputies who are more than happy to answer that question. We need to be honest with people. The Government's job is to protect the interests of Irish people and to use that interest to make our voice heard at international level.”
“This is the only aspect of the Spanish legislation that relates to services. The focus of the Spanish legislation is on the prohibition of the importation of goods. National legislation being taken forward by other EU member states is similarly focused on goods. Again, I remind the House that Ireland was the first EU country to announce its intention to prohibit the importation of settlement goods and other EU member states have followed that lead. On the potential economic implications, the Oireachtas committee asked the Government to look at this. The Government does not have the luxury of putting forward proposals without fully working through all of the potential consequences. That includes potential implications for the economy and for jobs. These have been outlined in debates between the Taoiseach and Deputy Boyd Barrett in here.”
“At the European level, the Single Market is a lot less harmonised in respect of trade in services than it is for trade in goods. The regulation of services is split across a variety of EU legislation and there would be huge challenges regarding, as the Taoiseach has said, the effective implementation and enforcement of restrictions on trade in services. Again, on the issue of services and actions taken by the Spanish Government, there are some misunderstandings. Spain has not implemented a ban on trade in services, so it is incorrect to suggest that it has done so. It has introduced a targeted amendment to its consumer protection law to prohibit the advertisement in Spain of services provided in Israeli settlements.”
“I acknowledge the point made by Deputies in respect of the absence of services from the Bill but no political view, however well meaning, whether expressed on this side of the House or the opposite side, can trump the rule of law. We cannot trump the law.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, there is no equivalent or similar broad public policy exception relating to external trade in services.”
“The politics changes in both directions. Actions taken at EU level in response to the appalling situation in Gaza have a much greater impact than those taken at national level. We will always stand up for human rights and international law within the EU and for accountability when it comes to breaches of international law. The question of services has been the main issue in this debate. This Government and any government has a responsibility to ensure that any legislation is legally robust, capable of being implemented and can withstand legal challenge. In the case of goods, a public policy exception exists in the EU regulation which controls the import of goods. This exception allows EU member states to adopt prohibitions on the import of goods for public policy reasons.”
“The Taoiseach also wrote the President of the European Council, António Costa, on 20 May reiterating Ireland's position on the EU's trade with Israel and requested an urgent discussion of these issues among EU leaders at the meeting of the European Council next week. I will ask for this as well at the General Affairs Council that I will attend next week. Member states reached political agreement last month to sanction Israeli extremist settlers and entities and those who enable them. That was hard fought for around the table. Every member state has a veto on that issue. The political reality is that we have to deal with that around the table. We hold the veto dear every time we have a referendum. The previous Hungarian Government held up that particular provision for some time. I welcome that the position has changed and moved on.”
“Ireland has repeatedly called for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement or, at a minimum, to suspend the trade elements of the agreement, as previously proposed by President Ursula von der Leyen. In advance of the Foreign Affairs Council next week, the Minister has asked the Commission to bring forward a proposal to prohibit EU trade with Israeli settlements on the basis of the EU's Common Commercial Policy. A number of member states supported this call in the Commission and were equally clear that proposals sanction certain Israeli Ministers cannot be a substitute or an alternative for an EU ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.”
“Those who are quick to criticise the Government's approach are slow to take account of the broader realities, including the debates happening at the EU level. Ireland has led from the front on this issue. We were the first EU country to announce our intention to prohibit the importation of settlement goods. Others have followed our lead, not the other way around. Other member states have come to agree with us. In the past week, Slovenia has had a change of government, and it has completely changed its policy on Israel. It has had a complete reset in relations. We have to deal with the realities of all of this around the European table.”
“I thank colleagues who have contributed to the debate. We are witnessing in plain sight the persistent and ongoing human rights abuses that Palestinian people endure under occupation. We are witnessing an appalling and worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. We are witnessing the deteriorating situation in the West Bank with massive expansion of settlements alongside rampant and escalating settler violence, all of which leads us to conclude that the actions of the current Israeli Government contravene international law. On the question of how best to respond, while we have moved ahead on prohibiting settlement trade in goods at a national level, our preference, which we have said this time and time again, is to work at an EU level and that collective action be taken at an EU level. This will have a much greater impact.”
“Every time we have had a referendum, Sinn Féin has campaigned against the very principle outlined in the treaties of the European Union so I do not understand why this has suddenly become a big issue. I have to question the good faith of this amendment. Everything we do is in accordance with the legal advice of the Attorney General, who is more conscious than most of our obligations under EU law. Again, those obligations are massively to our benefit, contrary to the line Sinn Féin has peddled over 50 years of opposition to the European Union.”
“We would not have enough people to use these products in Ireland so we are selling to the world. We cannot do that without trade agreements and this trade agreement does it with Canada. It has investor protection clauses in it and items the Opposition questions but the overall benefit is to the greater good of all the people of the country. Trade is complicated. Negotiations are tricky. Legal texts have to be read and studied very carefully. I will not take criticism for quoting the text of the agreements we are signing up to, because that is what anyone would expect all of us to do. I was criticised for that because it did not conform to the established views of the Opposition, but the benefits-----”
“That is all we are trying to do, because we have seen the benefits. I hope we will succeed. I hope the Seanad will support this and I hope the Dáil will support further trade agreements that require us to ratify them because we know that when we have trade agreements we benefit hugely from them. It is about time we started talking about the benefits of these trade agreements. That is how our employment is in this country. We have taxation coming in that is entirely dependent on international trade. There are not enough people on this island just to sell to ourselves and so we decided to branch out, first into the European Union and then around the world. Look at our factories. Eli Lilly in Kinsale produces the whole world's supply of Mounjaro. The botox factory in Westport produces the whole world's supply.”
“If the thing collapses, all those jobs - not just in Ireland but across the EU - that depend on trade with Canada could be lost. I am sorry it is not fashionable to talk about the fact that we need international agreements that have some elements of compromise and an element of sharing of sovereignty, but they bring huge benefits to us all. The EU itself is the classic example of all that. The Supreme Court has given us guidance as to how to do this in a constitutional way. The Government is obliged to examine and take very seriously what the Supreme Court says and we have done that and done it really carefully. Anybody who reads the Supreme Court decision of Mr. Justice Hogan and then reads this legislation will see that the Government is trying to implement this constitutionally.”
“We need to tell people that this is a trade agreement between the democratic member states of the European Union, which have agreed this democratically, and Canada. These are two of the best allies and friends in the world. We have cousins, friendships and business connections. Why does the Opposition only see the bad in this? If we take the steps-----”
“It is mostly down to the fact that we can sell to the world. We make way more products and services than we can possibly consume as a country. How then do we generate money to come into the country? We have to sell products, manufacture products, provide services and sell them to the world. You cannot do that unless you have trade agreements. It is really tricky because there are tariffs and there is uncertainty in some countries, which companies will not like to deal with because they do not know what will happen with their investments. That is what this is about. It is very simple. It is not the end of the world. As I said, with CETA it has been ten excellent years. We have Prime Minister Carney coming this week and I am sure he will get a really good welcome.”
“People get jobs and they get prosperity but the Opposition simply want to, I suggest, remove this because of unfounded fears about legislation and unfounded fears about international negotiations which go against the very text of the agreements. I have been criticised for quoting the text because it is uncomfortable for people to hear what is actually written in these agreements and in the interpretative statements because the text goes completely against the Opposition's arguments, which are simply fantastical. We have benefited hugely from the trade agreement with Canada and we must continue to make the case for trade. Why are there 2.7 million people working in the country when there were 1 million people working in the economy in 1973 when we joined the EU? It is mostly down to trade.”
“There must be certainty regarding the commitments we enter into internationally, hence the need for a timebound annulment procedure, which is pretty standard. We therefore believe the standard negative resolution in the Bill achieves the correct balance. Of course we want certainty with all of this. Of course we want certainty with CETA. Of course we want to ratify it and see the EU ratify it. Why? Because there are people the length and breadth of this country who are employed by companies that are trading with Canada or by Canadian companies operating here and they contribute to the €12 billion generated here by that trade.”
“Again, the Opposition seems to be making the point that this is somehow unique or dastardly on the Government's part but they are the exact same annulment provisions which, by the way, the Seanad never uses. I never see the Opposition putting forward a motion for annulment. Senator Mark Daly did so once and we almost were successful in that, but it never happens so it is hugely theoretical. We believe the approach we have adopted here achieves the correct balance of legislative efficiency and parliamentary scrutiny and therefore we cannot agree. I have already set out the position on amendment No. 19. Introducing this amendment would mean any such order could be annulled at any time without thinking of the consequences that would affect the people and the consequences for our ratification of the agreement.”
“We then have to go in to the Dáil and ask it to ratify this and agree to support this, if it requires national ratification, which this particular one does. They will not all need national ratification if they are done at EU level. There are so many steps along the way in the democratic process. The description Sinn Féin is giving it simply does not stand up to the facts. There are so many democratic steps on this way. All we are trying to do is add another one, which gives the Seanad the power to annul an order that we, the Government, would choose to make under this, in the same way it has powers to annul orders on all pieces of legislation.”
“There is this idea that somehow this can be all done and dusted and the Seanad does not have a role. That is the Constitution's fault and the fault of nobody else. The Constitution says the Dáil must decide whether the Government can enter into agreements or not. First of all, the EU will negotiate the agreement. We have to vote then at EU level, as does the European Parliament, to see this agreement come into operation. That is a democratic process. We saw that play out in the Mercosur agreement where we voted against the agreement. We can vote for or against these things. Then we have to put an order in here. The Dáil has the power to annul the order. The Seanad has the power to annul the order.”
“This legislation is very straightforward. There was a Supreme Court decision, which said ratification of CETA was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court said there was something that could be done if the Government wished to and that would make it constitutional. That is all we are doing here. That is exactly what we are doing. The legislation has been very carefully drafted with the assistance of the Attorney General based on the Supreme Court decision. The Opposition completely ignores the fact that totally separate to this legislation, which essentially classifies certain international agreements as being under the Arbitration Act, we cannot enter into any international agreement that causes a charge on public funds without going to the Dáil; the elected representatives of the people. We cannot do anything unless the Dáil agrees.”
“Senator Andrews is ascribing this dramatic power to the Government that we can just sign up to an international agreement, it will destroy the country and mean we will be sued until we have no money left in this country, and that we can do this without going back to the Seanad. We cannot do that. I think the Senator knows that. Coming forward with these fantastical ideas that somehow, what we are trying to do is some secret way to bankrupt the country because of some agreement that we reach-----”
“We are codifying the law. In the Supreme Court it was said that if an enforcement was in breach of the constitutional order of the State then it would not be enforceable and therefore, with this legislation we are simply codifying that. That is what we want to achieve here.”
“All I will say is that the experience with investment dispute resolutions to date has been raised. Our experience of the entirety of what the Opposition is talking about is extremely limited. We were previously party to one bilateral investment treaty, which was with Czechia. That lapsed when it joined the European Union. The Senator mentioned the Energy Charter Treaty. We deposited notice of withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty with the Energy Charter Secretariat. That is well known. Regarding this legislation, as required by CETA and the other new EU agreements, execution of awards will be governed by the laws concerning the execution of judgments or awards enforcing Ireland. The provisions of section 25A codify Irish law in that regard.”
“It happens because of the entrepreneurial skills of Irish people and Canadians, and because politicians have negotiated trade agreements. All trade agreements and all international agreements involve some level of compromise. There is give and take but the point of that give and take is that everyone benefits in the end. I really believe this is the case with CETA and the other trade agreements the European Union has entered into and from which we get huge benefit.”
“We have agreed together at EU level to have a trade and investment agreement with Canada. Therefore, it makes absolute sense that it would be a collective decision to terminate it. I cannot envisage circumstances in which we would want to end the agreement. In the case of Ireland alone, we have seen bilateral trade in goods and services increase from €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €12 billion in 2024. This supports thousands of jobs. I hear all of these allegations that there is going to be billions of euro worth of liability. Nobody talks about the billions, specifically €12 billion in 2024, in trade in goods and services; it is a case of that being grand and it just happens. It does not just happen, actually.”
“I can say this for a fact. We are constantly updated. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, was on the phone yesterday with the Commissioner, Mr. Šefčovič, about the various trade agreements he was negotiating on our behalf, and this would absolutely have been the case when the Labour Party was in government when this was being negotiated.”
“I know the way these things work. The Labour Party had a trade Ministry for a period of that Government, and trade Ministers would have been regularly informed by the Commission negotiators as to how the negotiations were going. This happens all the time in relation to trade agreements.”
“In spite of this, it is the case that if the EU and EU member states, including Ireland, come to the conclusion that circumstances arise in the case of CETA or a similar agreement whereby they should withdraw for whatever reason, and it would be really bad news for Ireland if that happened, the agreements include provision for termination. We have collectively agreed it through the democratic process at EU level. I see the Labour Party criticising this but it was in government when this was negotiated. I do not put any bad faith on them at that time.”
“Senator Higgins has argued that Ireland should not ratify CETA and other similar agreements because in her view the route for potential withdrawal from such agreements in future is not acceptable. In the first instance, I must stress that we have no intention of withdrawing from CETA. There have been ten great years for ordinary working people in this country whose incomes have increased and for businesses. We are working with the legislation to meet all of the domestic requirements in order to be in a position to allow us to go with a proposal to the Government and then to the Dáil to ratify the CETA agreement.”
“I can only comment on the amendment at hand. The amendment speaks about the avoidance of doubt but does not appear to reflect the current legal position in the Bill or in current law. The proposed amendment appears to be an attempt to circumvent the withdrawal provisions and any applicable sunset clauses included in a relevant international agreement through domestic law. The Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the international obligations Ireland would assume upon ratification of the relevant agreements. The inclusion of this amendment would not be inclined to those obligations and, therefore, we cannot agree to it.”